steven_clark

<p>Vuescan is ridiculously customizable. Once you know your way around the settings you can easily set it up to say "When I insert the negative carrier focus and scan each frame. Don't bother with a preview pass to determine exposure, I already determined the maximum exposure using a piece of the unexposed lead/tail. Process the colors from the scanner using a color profile I made from a Wolf Faust calibration target. Tweak the curves using some knowledge of the film I'm scanning. Clip the highlight and shadows to 0.02 percent of the image pixels but keep the colors neutral to a grey I sampled for this lighting in the preparation. Save a raw version of the scan in case I want to change the results, a 300DPI TIFF at 48 bits in the ProPhotoRGB color space with my limited color tuning applied named sequentially with this pattern, and a quarter-resolution preview thumbnail JPEG named the same thing with a t after it, all to this directory. Then eject the film carrier so I can load the next strip."<br> It's implementation of some things like color corrections or ICE isn't always industry leading but it has features tuned for doing all the things that it's too late to do in an image editor and do them as efficiently as possible. It includes a dummy "works with everything" USB driver that allows it to continue to work with scanners that lost support after Windows 98 or XP on the most recent versions of Windows or MacOS, or even Linux if your particularly masochistic. It works with almost everything, and it's updated forever if you get the pro license (which you should, I'm not sure there is a value proposition on the standard version).</p> <p>What it will not do is turn an Epson flatbed into a Nikon film scanner.</p> <p>Also scanning entire rolls of film at full quality in an attempt to archive them takes an insane amount of time. The workflow features of Vuescan may convince you that is not the case. But when you are reloading a film carrier at midnight to try to get in another six frames before returning to a fitful rest don't say I didn't warn you!</p>

<p>I've been getting certificate errors (I think from the ad networks) on many websites lately (with no signs of system infection and on multiple devices of different operating systems). This might be related.</p>

Experience has taught me that fully archiving film is kinda crazy. Even with all the features Vuescan brings to the table for efficient batch scanning a few rolls of film can take days, especially if you do any dusty spotting or color curves. If you're going to go through with it I'd suggest deciding on a resolution that fits a reasonable expectation of how much you might enlarge things and only scan at that (which you might be doing 3200 is below max, 2400 might be more reasonable). You may discover that 24-bit color is a little low if you decide to do something with the images later: film scans often need hefty corrections to the brightness curves. Tune the snot out of this until you a nice balance of speed vs quality, then find something else to do (maybe not on this computer) while a batch scans. Still, 115 rolls? Think of it like loads of laundry, wash day for the next month!

<p>It's guess and check focusing. It's focusing yourself with no way to actually see the effects of your focus until you print. There's symbols for the kind of scene you're shooting which should approximately give the distance to the subject for the camera's angle of view. It's not very precise and it only works because of the large depth-of-field of wide-angle lenses.</p> <p>I'd recommend the XA myself. Sure it's the most 80's camera ever created: all black plastic with red accents, but it's fully functional. It has a rangefinder for accurate manual focusing. It has aperture priority autoexposure with an easily-changed ISO for exposure compensation. And the lens is known for it's sharpness.</p>

<p>Thanks for the actual instructions. That's kinda what I suspected. Unfortunately I didn't order the whole mirror box, just the screen itself. At least that article has directions for that so it should be reasonable. As for getting other cameras? This is just my backup camera. I have a fully functioning (for now the mirror squeak might be coming back) A-1 as my main body.</p>

F/8 and be there. With the 22mm f/2 attached I can pants- pocket my EOS M. A dSLR (and even many mirrorless cameras) can't do that. There's a serious mobility advantage there. Also the short film-flange distance means you can adapt anything to a mirrorless including the orphaned FD and OM lens mounts where good fast primes are cheap and plentiful.

<p>Let's do some math:<br> 76ft * 12ft/in * 300p/in * 4ft * 12ft/in * 300p/in * 3Bytes/p / 1024B/KB / 1024KB/MB / 1024MB/GB = 11GB just to fit a single layer of a 300 pixel/inch image at 4'x76' into memory at low bit-depth much less print it or manipulate it. The person you are dealing with has obviously never worked with a print that big in their life. How to convince them that they have made an unreasonable request is a tougher thorn I'll leave to people with actual business experience.</p>

<p>I'd avoid iPads due to the lack of reasonable ways to just read a card from a camera. A good android (or Windows) tablet can use USB On The Go to connect to a camera by PTP or a memory card and reader by USB Mass Storage. It's also reasonably easy to use a Micro SD card in an adapter in the camera if you don't need absurd bandwidth for something like raw video. That way you can just insert the memory card directly into the tablet. These things are even easier on the Windows side, but essentially non options on iOS.</p>

<p>I have that one. It's an article from a periodical, you can tell by the way they refer to Canon as someone else. The directions sound at least good enough to get the top plate off when used in combination with youtube videos on the subject. I just have no pictures at all of the back of the camera with the top off to speculate on removing the screen. At a certain point exploratory surgery will just happen because the camera is useless without it (bad focus screen probably throws off metering too much). It won't be the first camera I've take apart but it might be second one I've ever put back together.</p>

<p>I damaged the fresnel on an AE-1 attempting to clean some mirror foam off. I found what claims to be a replacement screen at auction for cheap (I know it might be a Program screen but it seems to be missing the mounting hardware and tool for that, so I'll give the benefit of the doubt). I'm very short on money and long on spare time so I'm going to attempt the repair myself.</p> <p>Unfortunately I'm having trouble finding a legible repair manual or guide online. I found one, but it's a scan of a bad photocopy as far as I can tell and none of the pictures are legible. I'm not even sure where to start. On the Program you can pull out the screen by just unclipping it. The A-1 has a screw under the top of the lens mount that you can unscrew for access to the screen. Neither of these is the case on the original AE-1. It looks like there might be a way to pull it out from the back of it's housing but the frame is in the way. Maybe it's part of the mirror box and if I pull that out the front I can pull it out the back. You can see why pictures might be useful. It's not like the thing is welded in, there must be a way to replace it.</p> <p>Anyone have any repair experience? Found a better illustrated repair guide that isn't for the Program?</p>

<p>In an extreme case turn off "Auto-thumbnailing" entirely.</p>

<p>The basic principle is that renaming folder or file only causes problems if something recorded the old name of the folder. This is why Lightroom, of which the entire purpose is remembering where things are, might take exception to you renaming a folder you've told it about. Another way to put it: anything that would break if you were to copy the files and delete the originals will break if you rename the folder.</p>

<p>Oh, the camera is already disassembled at this point, should be easy to reassemble. My efforts before to fix the pinholes with sealant were only worked on half the corners. Since these bellows are enameled paper on the outside there's a hole in every corner and the corners are small so tape would have been a pain. I couldn't find bellows for Isolettes with an Ebay search. At this point I've already taken scissors to one of the side of the original bellows so I could flatten them for examination. It appears most of the flexing is done near, but not at the corners and the stiffeners either don't extend all the way to the corners or are slit at a right angle near the corners. I'm going to copy that idea for mine so all my stiffeners will be rectangles.</p>

<p>Also do push that battery check button. I've bought silver batteries in that size before that were essentially DOA. MIR also has good info for the AE-1. And might have better scans of the pictures.</p>

Keep in mind that 620 film is the same width and length but uses a different kind of spool. So 120 film needs to be respooled onto old spools if used on some old low end cameras like Brownies. This is not a problem for you here.

Isolettes are medium format folders. In this case a 6x6. I've removed and cut the original bellows so I can flatten them for reverse engineering, but there are so many pleats in this bellows design that they are small and hard to measure accurately. I was hoping someone knew some engineering principles I could use to sanity check my work. As for the original question: some basic geometry in my head says the lengths of some sides of the stiffeners need to change as the bellows extend. If the stiffeners were completely rigid(like made of steel) the design wouldn't work at all. I'm guessing that the long sides in the stiffeners have to bow out/in for the bellows to flex and wondering if that needs accounting for. I'm assuming if the change of shape happens at the corners it causes more wear and eventually premature pinholes. I've already purchased some blackout liner and broadcloth to build it and my time isn't very valuable right now while I'm short on money. Also I wasn't sure that the bellows on eBay would work in my particular camera without fault or modification.

So I'm planning to make a set of replacement bellows for an Isolette and I got to thinking about how bellows are constructed. As far as the image in my mind goes a single segment of bellows should not be able to move if made with rigid pieces hinged together. This means literally something has to give. What is supposed to flex in a bellows? so I can account for that in my construction and avoid putting wear someplace it doesn't belong.

My guess is that any cards above 32GB are formatted with the EXFAT file system and that's where you get incompatibility. Similarly any cards below 2GB could be formatted FAT16. So a reader made when all cards were in megabytes expects FAT16 and chokes on FAT32 multi-GB cards. A reader made to expect FAT32 chokes on cards that were formatted in the newer EXFAT system (because FAT32 has a 2GB maximum file size and is increasingly inefficient past 30GB) of sizes above 32GB. In SD cards this is one of the differences between SD,SDHC, and SDXC so at least it gets labeled.

<p>It's worth mentioning that CF (and PC card flash before it ) is effectively a form of Parallel ATA like a ten-year-old hard disk. The standard is OLD. These days parallel standards are being ditched in favor of high-speed serial or multiple serial links because there are a bunch of engineering issues like clock skew between the wires that make it hard to increase the speeds of parallel links.</p>

<p>Vuescan usually incorporates it's own "Claim to run everything" USB driver. I've heard of people successfully using that as a shim to get the manufacturers software working again.</p>

<p>I'm not sure how to adapt my oddball Picture Window Pro workflow to PS exactly but you should be able to take a high bit-depth image that hasn't been clipped much and adjust the colors manually using curves to shoulder shadows and highlights and set midpoint.</p>

I don't think I've ever used a hood on something shorter than telephoto. I suppose with a DSLR it becomes telephoto though, the original hood would be a bit wide then. Also filters are already fiddly so a step up ring isn't appreciably worse. A protection filter can be as cheap as you want, it's so far out of the plane if focus it just has to be flat. We're talking $20-30 off b and h if you even want any of that. Not bad

FD lenses often do not behave as you'd expect for stopping down manually. Have you tried the stop down tab on the camera instead of bulb?

<p>It looks like you've probably already run cleaning cycles. Maybe there's an air bubble in the tubes or something like that. If you can spare the ink do a cartridge replacement and just put your cartridges back in. This would cause a recharge of the ink tubes which if your lucky might solve your problem.</p>

<p>There might still be filesystem issues. One of the big changes from SD to SDHC was FAT32 instead of FAT16 likewise EXFAT with SDXC. The earlier filesystems had smaller maximum practical partition sizes. It's likely that this device can't read SDXC in particular because of it's relatively very new EXFAT filesystem.</p>